Red Hot Optics

Would you be shocked to hear that the readership of general-circulation science magazines is overwhelmingly white, male, and middle-aged? Probably not. Of course, you might comfort yourself with the thought that lack of interest in such magazines is programmed into the DNA of women, young people, and non-Caucasians, despite evidence that the relevant genetic information is apparently evolving awfully rapidly.

Would it surprise you to learn that overtly sexualized images of women cause tangible harm to adolescents and young women? Maybe it would. Not that there’s anything wrong with sexy images of people of any gender in appropriate contexts, but in the actual context in which children grow up in our culture, the way in which these images appear enacts a vastly disproportionate toll on young girls.

Are you at all taken aback by the cover of the latest catalogue for Edmund Optics, purveyor of scientific optical equipment?

Edmund Cover

The same image appeared in ads in Physics Today. Which, by the way, is not a biker magazine.

This sales pitch has caused a bit of consternation, including a lot of conversation on the AASWomen mailing list. But it’s not just those uppity wymyn who are upset. Geoffrey Marcy of Berkeley has written to the company to complain:

Dear Mr. Radojkovic and Mr. Delfino and Mr. Dover,

As representatives of Edmund Optics, I hope you will pass the following message to the appropriate management at Edmund Optics.

I just saw the images from the Edmund Optics catalog that show a woman in a tight red skirt lounging next to some optical devices, some with the caption, “Red Hot”. I hope Robert Edmund and the board of directors of Edmund can be alerted to this problem.

As a scientist and professor at UC Berkeley I am embarrassed on behalf of the many female science students coming along. I wonder what message such images of sex objects in your ads send to bright young scientists
of both genders.

Moreover, after decades of overt discrimination against women in the physical sciences, including precluding their admission to the best universities and the denial of access to the world’s best telescopes, your ad represents a setback. It reminds us of a dark era of clear discrimination against women, a time that I’m sure Edmund Optics hopes is long gone. If so, you have made a very serious error that insults the scientific community.

As you can imagine, your ad has already generated extraordinary discussion in the scientific community, analogous to the discussion over the comments by Harvard’s president who implied that women might not have what it takes to be great scientists. In short, your company has left open the question of your equal and unbiased treatment of women in your company and in your contracts.

Sincerely,
Geoffrey Marcy
Professor of Astronomy, UC Berkeley
Elected Member, United States National Academy of Sciences

To which Bill Dover at Edmund replied, in a classic example of “not getting it”:

Hi Geoff,

Thank you for your feedback regarding the EO catalog and our recent cover. No need to be embarrassed for the many female science students coming along. Rather, encourage them to celebrate that another smart, young, and attractive female has joined the ranks of women in a technical field, which breaks the pattern of discrimination you describe. You see, the woman featured on the cover is a six-year employee of Edmund and our Trade Show Manager and Spokesperson. Over the years we’ve received numerous positive comments and she has proven herself to possess the needed technical and social ability to successfully coordinate our tradeshows that showcase our products.

The recent cover photo emphasized a new product launch by Edmund. Our Trade Show Manager coordinated the showcase of these products at Photonics West last month. Had you happened by our booth for a visit, you would have had the opportunity to meet and speak with her about our Kinematic mounts as well as receive additional technical information from two other smart, young, and attractive, female optical engineers present at the time. So that you know, this line of Kinematic Optical Mounts, Table Platforms, and Mechanical Accessories are technically situated to become the standard for optical positioning equipment in the marketplace. We are excited about the quality, features, and price of these products and know that they will be very difficult to compete with and we chose our Trade Show Manager to help commemorate their release.

Professor Geoff, please encourage ALL of your female students to join the technical, engineering, and science ranks. There are too many that fall prey to the stereotypical concepts of what a person should look like or dress like which keep them from significant contributions in our society. That said, we value the opinions of our customers and we evaluate the feedback in developing our future strategies. I appreciate the time you have taken to mention your concerns here. I hope you will take the opportunity to encourage your female students to meet our female optical engineers at Edmund Optics. I think they, and you, will be impressed with their ability to support and represent woman [sic] in engineering.

Best Regards,
Bill

As far as I can tell, he’s saying that “she” is smart (so smart that she doesn’t need a name, apparently), so it’s okay! This is America, so any talented and attractive young woman with an interest in engineering can grow up to be a Booth Babe. He forgot to mention that “Better Performance. Better Price.” is the kind of slogan that any female should be proud to be associated with!

Actually it’s not okay. We’re not going to see this any time soon:

A little parity goes a long way, though. I have a vision of the next catalog cover–it features a handsome young man, maybe in chinos or a nice pair of jeans, barefoot, shirt halfway unbuttoned, an alluring gleam in his eye. Maybe a caption like “Well Oiled Mounts.”

And even if we did, it still wouldn’t be okay. (Although it would be highly amusing.) These images don’t appear in a vacuum; as long as the way that women and men are put on display in a wider cultural context remains dramatically imbalanced, a little equal-opportunity cheesecake here and there isn’t going to fix things.

Feel free to email Bill Dover (wdover-at-edmundoptics.com) and VP of Marketing Marisa Edmund (medmund-at-edmundoptics.com) to let them know what you think. (Thanks to Chaz Shapiro for the pointer.)

155 Comments

155 thoughts on “Red Hot Optics”

  1. #97: I agree that the context is everything. For example, I just happened to see an advert for beach holidays in Cyprus, where a gorgeous woman in a bikini is shown wading in the ocean in a tranquil, paradisical landscape. I don’t find it objectionable in the least, and it may in fact prompt me to go there on holiday, and be like the woman in the picture and experience the tranquility. The advert does not exclude men *or* women from seeing themselves as customers for the product being advertised. The context of the Red Hot advert on the other hand is definitely not conducive to a female seeing herself as a customer.

  2. Why oh why did Edmund Optics have to play up the “sex” aspect when they could have made a more colorful catalog cover by photographing the new optical equipment against a backdrop of red chili peppers? They wouldn’t have had to change the copy, and it could have been a lot more whimsical besides. I suspect a lack of imagination over there.

  3. B: you are not answering the question that I am asking. I am not talking in abstract about differences between men and women. If the culture you grew up in causes you to see that advert and immediately think that it is aimed as you as a customer, that’s great for you. Not everyone sees it that way, and I pointed you to a link to help show you why they feel that way.

    D: Thanks so much for the lecture on why the world is so bad that its hopeless to try and change my small corner of it for the better, and how feeling that way means I need to get over myself. I am glad I have never and will never listen to people like you, because if I did, I wouldn’t have achieved anything that I have.

  4. D — I can’t spend all my time being apoplectic about Budweiser ads. I just can’t. The best I can do in the case of Budweiser and Cosmopolitan and perfume is to try to be true to myself, and make the best purchasing choices for myself and my little family that I feel I can. But some people *are* upset about the portrayal of women (and sex) in the media in general, and they are working to change things. We all have to choose our own battles.

    This, however, is my area. I am not a woman working for Budweiser, struggling to be thought of as a ‘real’ beer drinker, or a perfume model longing for a refreshing new pose. I am a member of the astronomical community. I am a potential customer of Edmund Optics. I am a person who has the potential to change things for women in astronomy, or to be a part of the change that I hope we’ll see as my generation ages into tenure. To say that I shouldn’t be saddened by a portrayal of an attitude that *actually has a detrimental effect on me,* personally, isn’t fair. And as always, the argument that, “We have no solutions to problems A, B, C and D, so why are you whining about X, Y and Z?” doesn’t really fly.

    I also think it’s worth pointing out that at least *some* people commenting here aren’t as upset about the ad as they are about the flat-out denial that the ad is using sex to sell.

    Are we a special community? Well, certainly, if you want to count the fact that our demographics have a really twisted relationship to the demographics of the population as a whole.

  5. broken record – if you had read my post without, um, frothing at the mouth, you might have noticed that I decried the extent of our response, not the nature or the content of it. My point was not “resistance is futile” or “abandon hope all ye who open technical catalogs” so much as:

    a. let’s not insist that scientific ads must, as a matter of principle, adhere to higher standards than refrigerator ads. (I have no quarrel with the notion that, as the primary market for optical lenses, we have more impact on that market than on the market for refrigerators.) Roughly speaking, we don’t *deserve* as a matter of entitlement better than people who aren’t scientists.

    b. don’t get so disproportionately worked up – this happens. Believe it or not, there actually are bigger problems, for women and otherwise, around. We sound like babies whining over lollipops.

  6. Annie – I think I mostly agree with your post. Certainly I don’t object at all to the idea that we scientists affect (and are affected by) this market more than most others. It is then quite fine, I think, to take special interest in this particular ad.

    Our differences are more in emphasis: MY problem with this thread is our blase adoption of a zero tolerance policy on the objectification of women in our ads while blithely ignoring (by comparison) problems orders of magnitude larger in commercial markets as a whole. We risk sounding like – and being – prissy, sheltered, Marie Antoinettes. I mean, seriously, if THIS is even one of the thousand worst ads one has ever seen, that one needs to watch more TV.

  7. D: I am sorry that you continue to insist on telling me how I should or should not feel. I don’t see refrigerator ads excluding me as a customer, and it matters to me that women get an equal chance at pursuing their love of physics, just like men.

    If there are bigger problems that you are itching to solve, why not go and attend to them? And let people like me choose their own battles to fight? You sound so arrogant and holier than thou, maybe you should phrase yourself differently if you don’t want people to froth at the mouth.

  8. D, you’re misinterpreting brokenrecord’s response. She was not trying to claim that we “deserve” better treatment. She is pointing out that because we are part of a much smaller and more intimate community than, say, the refrigerator market, we’re actually in a better position *to enact change.*

    A big part of the problem for women in physics/astronomy is a lack of discussion, across genders, of the various kinds of issues that a woman may run into that a man in the field would not. So…. how is a *comment thread* about an example of such issues an insane response? How is discussion of one’s responses to an ad a “disproportionate” response?

    And while we’re tellng other people what to do — don’t tell another person what is or is not “disproportionate.” Believe it or not, a person can deal with more than one problem at a time. I mean, unless you want to categorize that person as a “baby”; then I can see why the concept of multiple lines of thought would be ruled right out.

  9. D — I do see your point that this is not the worst thing happening to women. But… that doesn’t negate its inherent “badness,” at all.

    I think perhaps the difference between this particular ad and a refrigerator ad is what the definition of “zero tolerance” is. It’s very, very different in the two cases. How does one enact a “zero tolerance” policy regarding advertising *in general*? I think that’s a very, very difficult question.

    But how does one enact a “zero tolerance” policy for this specific ad? Well, by writing a letter (and then getting a condescending response), and discussing it *within the specific community.* I can make a (small) difference by referring a male colleague to this thread and saying, “I think you’ll find this interesting,” or by replying to someone in this thread in the hopes that they will be able to understand my position as a woman in astronomy just that much better. Because all of our colleagues have the potential to be aware of this detrimental attitude, and to then keep it in mind (and perhaps put it to use in their approach to female students and colleagues). That’s a very real possibility.

    We’re responding because we CAN. We’re responding because by doing so we may see a result. We’re responding because it is so, so very rare to *have a forum* in which to respond. I don’t know about all the other female scientists posting here, but Cosmic Variance is pretty much the only place where I can discuss these issues with men. We have clubs for women in physics, and we have general “women in science” talks and colloquia that we can attend. But there are not a lot of opportunities for open communication that actually includes the other gender. And thanks for that, Sean :). It makes Cosmic Variance a very special place.

  10. Obviously, in this instance, my particular battle happens to be scientists seeing themselves as being apart from and higher than the Great Unwashed Masses, which I think is a huge PR problem, besides of course being rather indecent. This sense of elevation is one I’ve repeatedly got from this thread. On no other account can I realistically envisage this much interest in an ad that in any other industry wouldn’t even be noticed as atypically sexual or demeaning.

    Yes, I think the response is disproportionate, and as far as I know it is just as okay for me to say so as it is for someone else to call the ad itself sexist. Neither claim has much do do with forcing people (like broken record) to do or not do anything at all; I scarcely see what thought control has to do with anything

  11. Well, Edmund has a long way to go to catch up with the (no joke) Ridgid Tool Company, I think, whose bi-annual calendar features bikini-clad models straddling very large pipe wrenches…

  12. D: maybe there is a failure of logic on my part – I can’t follow your reasoning at all. How does doing something to improve the lot of women in physics makes me someone who thinks themselves as above the “Unwashed Masses”? I am doing so because I *can* make a change in a way I can’t in a more global problem, and it doesn’t mean I can’t see or sympathise with the global injustice, or do what I can to help. There is no way that I can have even remotely the same impact in that global problem, however, that I can about this particular subset of problems.

    Where did you read anyone on this thread claiming that we scientists are elevated above the rest and that we have no interest in other social problems? Believe it or not, some of us can actually multi-task.

  13. Annie, as before I more or less agree. Except:

    I think perhaps the difference between this particular ad and a refrigerator ad is what the definition of “zero tolerance” is. It’s very, very different in the two cases. How does one enact a “zero tolerance” policy regarding advertising *in general*? I think that’s a very, very difficult question.

    To me, saying we should tolerate worse in refrigerator ads than in optical lens ads (because physicists buy telescopes) is precisely the problem I’ve been reacting to. On what, I ask, might we possibly ground such a notion? Is it because physicists buy telescopes while mere housewives and plumbers buy fridges? Obviously that is not what you’re saying, but I believe that’s what many reading that line who’re not physicists (male or female) are going to conclude. Indeed, I fail to see how one can justify that statement except by recourse to the “specialness” of physicists. Certainly no property intrinsic to telescopes and fridges applies (unlike, say, with beer and frat boys)

    It is fine (and morally obligatory), I think, to work for as welcoming and modern an environment for female physicists as possible. What is not acceptable, I think, is to act like physicists deserve the right to set lower thresholds for tolerable behavior than everyone else.

  14. D — if this comment thread were about another issue, would you say that people trying to fix a problem *that affects them personally* were putting themselves above the unwashed masses?

    Are parents who crusade for better understanding of the proper way to install child safety seats in cars putting themselves on a pedestal above the “unwashed masses” who ride bicycles or use public transportation? Are people concerned about hate crimes putting themselves above the people who have to deal with plain ol’ crime? If the ad was not an astronomically-minded ad portraying a woman in the technical field, but was rather an ad for some other product portraying women of color, and some women in that demographic were bothered by it, would they somehow be to blame for separating themselves from the rest of the population?

    I don’t think your logic works for any of these examples. I don’t understand why it works for me. I don’t understand why I am not allowed to be concerned about one problem simply because other problems exist.

    I understand that there are thousands of ads out there that demean me simply because I am a woman. Don’t worry, I do indeed watch television. But there aren’t a ton that actually portray women *in astronomy.* Why is it unfair for me to comment — on a blog, about astrophysics no less — about this one specific issue?

  15. D — in the specific comment you just responded to, I wasn’t trying to say that we should EMOTIONALLY tolerate more crap in fridge ads. I was pointing out that putting our lack of tolerance INTO ACTION is different in the two contexts.

    We’re not talking about the right (to feel), we’re talking about access (to act).

    I don’t work in advertising. I do work in a male dominated field. I am therefore better equipped to enact change through *my* field than through the *advertising* field.

    If I actually designed refrigerator ads, and was here saying, “Oh, no, my work is different, because the average folks deserve less than scientists do,” then your argument would hold water. Clearly I am not doing that. All I am doing is saying that Edmunds should design a better ad. I said nothing, at all, about what other companies should put in their own ads.

    We’re not saying we deserve better. We’re saying everyone deserves to be treated fairly, in all contexts. What we’re *do*ing is broaching discussion within our own community. We’re talking about one ad. A couple of others have been mentioned. How does that represent a discussion about how all other ads are find, but this one is different because it’s sciencey?

  16. Annie, perfectly put. And I too applaud Cosmic Variance for providing a venue for this discussion that is rare enough to be almost unique.

  17. Since we are dishing out analogies, here is one that I think is more representative of my views…well, it’s a story, but oh well.

    My college dining hall paid students on financial aid $8.50 an hour. Some students got together and wrote a letter of complaint pointing out that this wage was much lower than the wage for other similar jobs, all of which paid around ten bucks an hour. They were right of course. It WAS in fact an unfair pay difference. The problem with that letter – as several people pointed out – was that these people completely ignored the fact that working alongside them in this same dining hall were full-time employees being paid minimum wage to do roughly the same job. Tone matters, I’m saying.

    Also, I honestly do not know why you repeatedly inform me that this issue affects you personally. I realize this. As I have said repeatedly, my problem is not with women (and men) in astronomy being peculiarly interested in this ad. I do not know how much plainer I can make that statement, but try this – my very presence here indicates as much…I do not frequent comparable boards for every product and offensive ad.

  18. Annie and broken record, thanks for the kind words. And thanks for continuing the discussion; like most people, I can only go on for so long before other obligations intervene (and I get tired of beating my head against the wall).

    It seems perfectly obvious to me why scientists would want to talk about the climate within their own field, rather than prioritize the problems of the world and only talk about the worst one. In fact, I’m pretty sure that everyone does this, in whatever field of endeavor they’re in themselves.

  19. About being better than the “great unwashed” – I work at a large multinational corporation that has standards about these things and they would not wittingly advertise the way Edmunds has (or I should say that if they did, they would be breaking corporate codes of conduct that we are required to review every year.) If some agency placed somehow such an ad. for them, there would be a lot of internal soul-searching. Would that make this corporation elitist, etc.?

  20. D — I think this must be another failure of communication. I see some ways in which the situation you describe is an analogy for this dialogue, but none that would logically lead to the conclusion, “Female scientists complaining about sexist advertisements from companies whose technical equipment they use are babies whining over lollipops.”

    And though you claim that you have “said repeatedly, [your] problem is not with women (and men) in astronomy being peculiarly interested in this ad,” you’re still concluding that by being particularly interested in this ad, we are acting like we are babies, like we are fundamentally better than other people faced with sexism, and like we are both “entitled” and “frothing at the mouth.” That sounds very much to me like there is no way for us to be both concerned with the attitude portrayed by this ad and up to your standard of decency.

  21. D says: Tone matters, I’m saying.
    I find this hilarious! Look at the tone of the series of comments you wrote first.

  22. Annie: yes! If you care to chat offline about some of these issues sometime, I *think* Sean knows who I am, and can maybe put us in touch with eachother. I am done with this discussion – Ciao 🙂

  23. Among other things, this ad lacks imagination.

    Suppose instead of cheesycake, their ad campaign featured a headshot of a young scientist along with an exotic (well, to me) piece of hardware. For each catalog they could select to feature a young scientist who has made an interesting contribution to the field during the past year. As a matter of course whatever choice they made would be controversial, but at least it would be controversial in the right way.

    Who knows, appearing on the cover of the Edmund’s catalogue might become semi-prestigious (at least socially, for a moment). At the very least it would be celebrating the achievements of the scientific community which is the source of business.

    I’d bet that if they continued this approach over a significant period, the catalogues would become collectors items, and your mothers would probably be thrilled.

  24. Hey Sean, sorry to bug you . . . I always enter my email address in the “will not be published” line. I don’t know if y’all end up with this info, or if it’s at all easy for you to access, but I would be more than happy to have it passed on to broken record.

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top